New bodhi release in production

[Al Dunsmuir]

Hello Kevin,

On Thursday, August 12, 2010, 8:04:12 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>> The F-(x) package will have higher EVR than the F-(x+1)  one. This
>> will break the upgrade path. Is there any measures to prevent this?

> No. In fact FESCo specifically refused to consider this as an issue, they
> say separate releases need separate testing and so they refuse to accept the
> Fn karma as grounds to push the Fn+1 update. No amount of arguing helped.

> Such broken upgrade paths are now going to be extremely common with this
> useless, broken and inflexible procedure.

>         Kevin Kofler

You are assuming that it is somehow a good idea to push release Fn, in
spite of no (or negative) testing.  My understanding is that _that_ is
what FESCo refused to consider.

A  saner  approach  would  be  that  for related changes, release Fn-1
should not be pushed to stable until release Fn is _also_ ready to go.
This  prevents the EVR problem, and ensures that regressions caught on
release Fn that are also applicable to release Fn-1 will not escape.

Al